New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)

- NFL (https://blackandgold.com/nfl/)

- - Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick (https://blackandgold.com/nfl/25983-steelers-trade-holmes-jets-fifth-round-draft-pick.html)

Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper (Post 218348)

I am going to stop, but before I do, I will just tell you this: language is everything in law. Semantics in law are a ***** :) . Presumption of innocence and not enough evidence to charge do not equate to being "innocent"..

In the eyes of the law, not enough evidence does equate to just that. What other brand can you put on a person? There is no 'purgatory' status. There is no "well, we all know he did it" status in law. I am presumed innocent, BY LAW, until proven otherwise, at which point I am guilty - or perhaps 'responsible' in the case of a civil trial.

So anyone that says Ben 'did this' or 'did that' or that the DA didn't 'do this' or 'do that' because of 'this' or 'that' is working without any real evidence, and as the accused, Ben has the right, BY LAW, to be presumed innocent, and the burden of proof lies with those that make those assumptions.

And yes, the language is paramount, which is more or less my whole point. :-)

Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

Quote:

Originally Posted by CantonLegend (Post 218218)

i said, i believe ben did something......but i dont believe it was rape......he may have made unwanted advances and he may have forced himself on her but obviously there wasnt enough evidence....not blood....not DNA....not video.....not anything that says ben did anything significantly wrong to deserve the guilty sentence of rape

Ok, if Ben did something, as you admit, how can he be innocent? Again, I never said he raped anyone. I merely said to assume he did nothing wrong simply because no charges were filed is a mistake. You accuse me of bias, and you assume he is innocent and you assume I am saying he raped her. But I never did, so who is showing more bias?

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218359)

So anyone that says Ben 'did this' or 'did that' or that the DA didn't 'do this' or 'do that' because of 'this' or 'that' is working without any real evidence, and as the accused, Ben has the right, BY LAW, to be presumed innocent, and the burden of proof lies with those that make those assumptions.

Yet you are assuming that Ben didn’t do this or he didn’t do that because not enough criminal evidence exists. Fine, I agree if there is not enough evidence to bring to trial that there is reasonable doubt as to weather or not he sexually assaulted her. That is the definition of proving guilt or not in a court. No where is the term innocent used. Weather or not you want to admit it, if you ask any trial lawyer, they will say the fact that he was not charged with assault could mean anything from Ben did nothing wrong at all to he did a lot wrong and was so good at covering up his tracks that they could not prove he did wrong. That is the point I’m making. To assume he did nothing wrong and is innocent of any wrongdoing has no more basis in fact than saying he defenitely did rape her. You fall back on the point that he wasn’t charged and therfore you say he is innocent (again I ask of what since he was not charged). Yet to validate this point you ignore the fact that it has been shown before (once, a dozen or a hundred times, it really doesn’t matter) that the judicial system makes mistakes and that guilty people can go free and innocent people can go to prison.

You actually make the point for me Saintfan when you say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218310)

Have you ever committed a crime? Probably. Are you in jail? Me neither.

Well there you go. If you committed a crime you are not innocent. And yet you are not in jail. So if you have committed a crime and not gone to jail, why are you so set against the possibility that Ben committed a crime and avoided jail as well? Instead, you just keep shouting he is innocent. I'll agree he should not go to jail based upon what the police have to go on. But that is a long way away from being able to claim he is an innocent man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218359)

And yes, the language is paramount, which is more or less my whole point. :-)

And if that is your point, you should realize that the term innocent is not part of the legal equation. In a court setting, the terms Guilty, Not Guilty, and reasonable doubts are the key ones. Innocent is for court movies.

Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL (Post 218425)

Saintfan and Canton, I appreciate the dialogue. It is good when a hefty subject can be discussed without it degrading into name calling.

I believe you two have circled the argument back to the point I was making all along. First of all SF, Canton was the first to mention our perfect judicial system on post #67 with ” our judicial system is set up so perfectly”. I was playing off that because it obviously is not perfect.

But my point is basically the same one you are making; that one should not assume anything. In none of my posts have I said that he is guilty of anything. Really, go back and read. I never mentioning him raping, forcing himself, assaulting, or even insulting anyone. My whole point is to point out the mistake you two are saying. And that point is you two are assuming he is “innocent”. You have both used that term multiple times. So, since he was not charged with anything. And I did not say he did anything specific, what exactly are you two saying he is innocent of?

Ok, if Ben did something, as you admit, how can he be innocent? Again, I never said he raped anyone. I merely said to assume he did nothing wrong simply because no charges were filed is a mistake. You accuse me of bias, and you assume he is innocent and you assume I am saying he raped her. But I never did, so who is showing more bias?

Yet you are assuming that Ben didn’t do this or he didn’t do that because not enough criminal evidence exists. Fine, I agree if there is not enough evidence to bring to trial that there is reasonable doubt as to weather or not he sexually assaulted her. That is the definition of proving guilt or not in a court. No where is the term innocent used. Weather or not you want to admit it, if you ask any trial lawyer, they will say the fact that he was not charged with assault could mean anything from Ben did nothing wrong at all to he did a lot wrong and was so good at covering up his tracks that they could not prove he did wrong. That is the point I’m making. To assume he did nothing wrong and is innocent of any wrongdoing has no more basis in fact than saying he defenitely did rape her. You fall back on the point that he wasn’t charged and therfore you say he is innocent (again I ask of what since he was not charged). Yet to validate this point you ignore the fact that it has been shown before (once, a dozen or a hundred times, it really doesn’t matter) that the judicial system makes mistakes and that guilty people can go free and innocent people can go to prison.

You actually make the point for me Saintfan when you say:

Well there you go. If you committed a crime you are not innocent. And yet you are not in jail. So if you have committed a crime and not gone to jail, why are you so set against the possibility that Ben committed a crime and avoided jail as well? Instead, you just keep shouting he is innocent. I'll agree he should not go to jail based upon what the police have to go on. But that is a long way away from being able to claim he is an innocent man.

And if that is your point, you should realize that the term innocent is not part of the legal equation. In a court setting, the terms Guilty, Not Guilty, and reasonable doubts are the key ones. Innocent is for court movies.

I too appreciate the dialog. It's pretty easy for things to go south in these kinds of discussions.

Here's what I mean by innocent: Not convicted of the crime. Morally speaking I cannot know. I'm speaking in terms of the law (this is one reason why legislating morality scares the pee out of me). I don't know and neither does anyone else besides the two people involved what really happened. I'm not making assumptions to Ben's "guilt" or "innocence" either way.

All I can say for certain is there was, according to the DA, not enough evidence to press charges. Therefore, Ben is Innocent. How a person feels about whether or not he did anything inappropriate is rendered irrelevant because, in the eyes of the law, the man is Innocent.

I disagree with you about the term 'innocent'. It is most certainly a part of the legal equation. We are, by right, innocent until we are proven guilty. It is the right of the accused to be presumed innocent, placing the burden of proof on the accuser. It is, in my humble opinion, a fundamental part of the equation, because without it our legal system could not possibly even resemble what you are I are familiar with.

Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218359)

I love you, man! :cheers:

Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

I find solace in the fact that the league and or the Steelers agree with me Rapelenberger will be suspended and possibly traded away from the steelers to fight for a job elsewhere disgraced as he should be. Talk "Language" al you want he WILL PAY

Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

Quote:

Originally Posted by falconhater (Post 218651)

Man, you're so off base it's difficult to express it. What the league does has precisely nothing to do with what the legal system does. Get yourself educated dude. You're embarrassing yourself.

Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218658)

Man, you're so off base it's difficult to express it. What the league does has precisely nothing to do with what the legal system does. Get yourself educated dude. You're embarrassing yourself.

Why are you so hung up on your interpretation of our legal system? At this point the league and team are looking at and talking to him very closely. He could...stress could be suspended or traded because of his repeated actions. I'm watching news now and more is coming out about the investigation right now. Hater has a right to feel like he does and you inferring he is dumb is kinda silly, because at this point he still may face discipline.

Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL (Post 218665)

I will infer the same about you if you agree with him. What he's saying makes no sense. The league can very well 'legislate morality' among the players. Your employer can require you to shave, for example. It's two different things, completely, and entirely. Too bad for you two if you can't see that.

It's not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of the SUPREME COURT, which I'll be happy to quote for you - or you can just Google it for yourself if you'd like to understand completely the point I'm making.

Being suspended or traded has what, exactly, to do with this conversation about our legal system? Oh yeah...nothing.

And there is nothing right at all about feeling the way he feels, other that the fact that he has a right to feel that way, misguided as he may be, unless of course you'd like to be convicted of a crime and have your life ruined while the person accusing/convicting you can't prove the allegations against you.

Good GOD people.

Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

Dude, that is my exact point. Try reading what other people say with your mind and eyes open instead of guessing at what people don't understand and trying to come up with a clever response. Hater's most recent comment did not mention the legal system at all. You brought it up in response and mentioned how off base he was. Now you come back and say they have nothing to do with each other. I agree...too bad you can't see that! That's why i asked why the heck you brought it up. It has nothing to do with his comment! Quit trying to make others look dumb by shaking your head at what you think they don't undersrtand and stay on point if you can. I ask again, why do you go back to the legal thing (and then go off on how it is seperate than the league regulating morals) when Hater's point was about the league (not the courts) going after him in the first place. You are the one all over the place with your arguments.

And as for the supreme court backing you up, well all court systems back me up, because in a trial, the verdicts are guilty or not guilty.....never is the verdict innocent. Look it up.